Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Reveals non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the AI mediator re-runs deterministic checks, cannot contradict reproducible results, and can only RELEASE or REFUND. The TEST MONEY ONLY warning is critical context that prevents the agent from assuming real funds are involved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense, informative sentences with no filler: endpoint, role constraints, mediator behavior, and test-mode warning each earn their place. The key scope restriction is front-loaded before the outcome details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with signed-request and wallet modes and no output schema, the description covers the core call semantics and outcome set, while the schema fills in parameter and signing details. It could add an explicit note about rejected disputes or deadline edge cases, but the current definition is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents job_id format, reason constraints, signed_request requirements, and wallet modes. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full semantic load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the exact operation: POST /v1/jobs/{job_id}/dispute to contest an outcome within the window, and further specifies role eligibility (buyer disputes PASS; provider disputes FAIL). This is a specific verb+resource+scope description that distinguishes the tool from generic submit or appeal siblings, even without naming them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage context: only within the dispute window and only for the matching role/outcome combination. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives like afg_appeal, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.